Asking for email access, and refusing to let people into the country if they refuse, is no worse than just refusing to let them into the country in the first place without bothering to ask for their email. As long as Israel only refuses to let into the country (wither directly or by asking for email) those people who they are legitimately suspicious of, it's unlikely such businessmen will be affected. And if they are affected, Israel can just directly go to "not letting them in the country" rather than asking for Bill Gates' private account, being refused, and then not letting him in their country.
if you filter visitors by this criteria then the only people who you let into the country are those without jobs; or terrorists, who have enough money to last them to the end of their lives
If you only ask this of suspicious people, at worst you end up filtering out all the suspicious people.
You're also assuming that everyone who enters Israel is as computer-savvy as your average Slashdotter.
Your number 1000 is pulled out of thin air. Countries are big places, and a heck of a lot more than 1000 people support each terrorist. If you assume that 10% of the population of Afghanistan supports terrorism, that's already 3 million people which is a lot more than a ratio of 1000 to 1 just from that one country.
Plastic forks cause more deaths because there are more plastic forks around. If you're comparing the numbers of deaths caused by different objects, you need to adjust for how common such objects are; otherwise you end up concluding that falling in an active volcano is safer for kids than either plastic forks or magnets.
Women (when you get outside the poor single mother demographic, which isn't too likely in the tech industry) are less willing to take low satisfaction jobs in exchange for high pay to support their family, because of the expectation that the man is the primary breadwinner. Needless to say, this is going to lead to few women taking tech jobs.
Women are also less willing to become social outcasts for their interests, and with fewer girls obsessed with geeky subjects than boys, you're going to have fewer women in the tech industry.
You can solve these by improving tech working conditions and improving the status of geeks. Of course that'll never happen.
I am honestly puzzled and hope that someone could explain. Supposedly there were some reforms in the process around 2000 which fixed most of the problems with H1Bs. I am led to understand that they did not, but it's hard to find a good explanation of exactly why those reforms didn't help enough. Wikipedia has a vague explanation of "However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates" which I find completely incomprehensible. Can anyone explain exactly what the problem is with those reforms?
The actual scenario is closer to: 1. I sign a contract stating I will not tell anyone what you're about to tell me next. 2. You show me a few gigabytes of private documents most of which you can legitimately keep secret but one of which describes your plan to shoot me next week. 3. I reveal the entire contents of the documents, including not only the gun threat, but everything else down to your embarrassing medical condition and the fact that you lied to your wife when she asked you if a dress made her look fat. I post them all on the Internet, with the excuse that the information contains a gun threat.
I don't know about that. How do you compare companies that do drastically different things, but also do them to drastically different numbers of people?
Taking someone's home is clearly at least ten thousand times as worse as DRMing a game. But there are also probably over ten thousand times as many victims for the latter.
It's like the argument that we pay actors millions of dollars and we pay teachers a pittance. Well, teaching is more important than entertainment--if you're teaching one person and entertaining one person. But you can entertain millions of people at a time, and things that are much less important taken one at a time are multiplied by millions.
There has to be some point at which inconveniencing tens of millions of people is worse than causing serious harm to a much smaller number.
Well, it's usually the "I have to crawl in there and start fiddling with cables" that puts people off such
What? The number of cables it takes to attach a tablet with an HDMI port to a TV is one. If one cable causes people trouble, I don't understand how they can handle their PS3 and Wii.
And a more basic problem with this argument is that the main audience for these devices is geeks, who don't have problems with attaching cables, using wireless controllers, or any of the other things that are supposed disadvantages over using a tablet with an HDMI port. It doesn't matter if these devices are slightly better for your grandmother; your grandmother probably won't step in a Gamestop, never mind use Kickstarter or even want a video game console at all.
Is there something wrong with such usage, though?
Using it for emulators and Pirate Bay is just a consolation prize. It's not advertised as doing that. Not all people like to do such things and for those who don't, the worst case is finding out the device is not useful for its advertised purpose and having no use for it at all.
(Actually there's another use I left out. Legitimate Netflix. But existing game consoles can already handle that.)
on families with lots of young, active children it might even be more cost-efficient to buy a cheap ~$50 box than one of the more powerful once
The lower end of small cheap tablets with HDMI ports already falls under the $100 range.
Why is everyone going gaga over Android consoles? You can already hook up many existing tablets or other Android devices to HDMI and see games on your television. These new Android consoles are unlikely to get lots of games specific to just that console, so they will mostly run ordinary Android apps. They'll probably be used mostly to run emulators and media players on a TV--except that you can jailbreak a Wii to get that and the processing power of Android game consoles is weak enough that they have no advantage over a Wii for emulators (and only an advantage for media players because they have hardware decoding).
Aside from the joke about the misspelling of "Streisand", this is on the money. Forcing an admin to delete one article is subject to the Streisand effect. Forcing admins to delete an article every month for the next year will result in the Internet getting tired of hearing about it, and at some point getting the articles deleted actually won't attract any attention.
If they take it seriously and believe me when I say "I have a bomb," then why would they distrust me when I say "I don't have a bomb or gun or knife or anything dangerous" and let me skip the screening.
Because they don't necessarily believe you 100% Suppose they think your statement has a 25% chance of being true. A 25% chance of having a bomb is enough that they ought to search you, but a 25% chance of not having a bomb isn't enough to let you through.
You know what else induces stress? Actually being on a mission to bomb the plane. I would be extremely unsurprised at bombers who joke about having bombs. It's stupid for someone who actually has a bomb to joke about it, of course, but getting on a plane with a bomb is more stressful than even an ordinary TSA-laden airplane flight.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
I guarantee that if you cure cancer you'll make as much as a basketball player.
Presumably you're referring to someone who cures one case of cancer. If a doctor manages to cure a patient of cancer, that's a good thing, but it's still one patient. The basketball player entertains, which is something worth much less--except although it's worth much less it's multiplied by the ability to entertain tens of millions of people at a time. It doesn't matter that basketball is worth less than curing cancer, because the basketball player makes it up in volume. Much less valuable thing times tens of millions = much more valuable thing.
New technology often makes things which were possible but impractical, practical.
People could wander around with traditional video capture devices, but it would be awkward for them to do so and most real-world attempts to do this would be easy to notice, even if it's theoretically possible that someone could have a little hole in their shirt pocket just for the cellphone camera to peek out of. Google could pay people to collect video, but it would be expensive on a large scale.
You are taking that sentence out of context. That article absolutely does not say that it is controversial that the meteorite came from Mars. The only part that is controversial is the part about the life. It's right there in the article:
While the claim remains highly controversial, the JSC scientists say further study has bolstered the evidence for fossilised life in ALH84001.
Furthermore, the article is actually about locating where on Mars the meteorite comes from. At no point does it ever say that there is doubt that the meteorite comes from Mars.
Your link refers to a particular Mars meteorite that some people thought might contain evidence of life.
You've misunderstood that. The meteorite is from Mars. The "life" part was questionable, but the "Mars" part was real. Nobody was "fooled" into thinking it's from Mars; it's really from Mars, and scientists haven't changed their mind about that.
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet. However, they also say that Apple can file an amended application claiming "acquired distinctiveness". Apple will have no trouble doing that, so basically, they can trademark it if they try again.
If they do that, they have to disclaim "mini" as being descriptive.
A Nexus 4 doesn't have an SD card slot. What phone would you recommend that is pretty good for non-phone purposes, falls in a similar price range or lower, and allows an SD card?
The term was adopted by vitriolic anti-Christians as literally "Christianity without Christ" and is extremely offensive to anybody that knows that. If you're actually looking to have intelligent discourse,
This isn't true.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas (which applies it to more words than just Christmas). The "X" derives from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter in Christ, and it's been used that way for hundreds of years.
The phone is prophibited because the phone tries to connect to dozens of cell towers when it's in a plane in the air. That's a different reason thatn interference with the plane itself, which is the reason for the general electronics ban, so if the FAA gets rid of the ban it won't affect cellphones.
According to TFA, 1) Congress complained about the video and 2) the IRS admitted it was a mistake to make the video. If they just needed to produce a dummy video, and the Star Trek theme involved spending no money over what they would have spent anyway, why would they then announce that "There is no mistaking that this video did not reflect the best stewardship of resources"?
(Moreover, according to TFA, Congress did determine that the Gilligan's Island one was legitimate, so it's not as if they were doing a witchhunt and would refuse to accept any video with a TV show theme. If this video too was legitimate the IRS should have had no problems explaining it away. Obviously they couldn't.)
If hospitals in your country are being used as a shield by terrorists, and as a result Americans start attacking your hospitals, that's the fault of the terrorists for using your hospitals as shields and/or the fault of your own government for letting your country be used as a haven for terrorists, not the fault of the Americans. This is true whether the attack is cyber or physical.
It really sucks to have terrorists hiding among civilians because it makes the civilians get hurt in attacks, but that's what happens when terrorists hide among civilians.
Furthermore, the question is whether nations have the right to kill enemy hackers. You do not; you are not a nation. If the Americans are attacking you and you want to attack them back, get your country to declare war on America and join the army.
I don't know if that counts as the activity of ordinary people. It's not as if she wrote a blog, or a newspaper column, or even protested without causing disruption.
It's like claiming that a law against bank robbery can be "enforced against ordinary people" because an ordinary person can rob a bank. Yeah, they can, but robbing a bank isn't really the activity of an ordinary person in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Asking for email access, and refusing to let people into the country if they refuse, is no worse than just refusing to let them into the country in the first place without bothering to ask for their email. As long as Israel only refuses to let into the country (wither directly or by asking for email) those people who they are legitimately suspicious of, it's unlikely such businessmen will be affected. And if they are affected, Israel can just directly go to "not letting them in the country" rather than asking for Bill Gates' private account, being refused, and then not letting him in their country.
If you only ask this of suspicious people, at worst you end up filtering out all the suspicious people.
You're also assuming that everyone who enters Israel is as computer-savvy as your average Slashdotter.
Your number 1000 is pulled out of thin air. Countries are big places, and a heck of a lot more than 1000 people support each terrorist. If you assume that 10% of the population of Afghanistan supports terrorism, that's already 3 million people which is a lot more than a ratio of 1000 to 1 just from that one country.
Plastic forks cause more deaths because there are more plastic forks around. If you're comparing the numbers of deaths caused by different objects, you need to adjust for how common such objects are; otherwise you end up concluding that falling in an active volcano is safer for kids than either plastic forks or magnets.
Women (when you get outside the poor single mother demographic, which isn't too likely in the tech industry) are less willing to take low satisfaction jobs in exchange for high pay to support their family, because of the expectation that the man is the primary breadwinner. Needless to say, this is going to lead to few women taking tech jobs.
Women are also less willing to become social outcasts for their interests, and with fewer girls obsessed with geeky subjects than boys, you're going to have fewer women in the tech industry.
You can solve these by improving tech working conditions and improving the status of geeks. Of course that'll never happen.
Do you have a web site or something describing which ones have been repealed? (Or one describing problems with enforcement?)
I am honestly puzzled and hope that someone could explain. Supposedly there were some reforms in the process around 2000 which fixed most of the problems with H1Bs. I am led to understand that they did not, but it's hard to find a good explanation of exactly why those reforms didn't help enough. Wikipedia has a vague explanation of "However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates" which I find completely incomprehensible. Can anyone explain exactly what the problem is with those reforms?
Since when do law abiding citizens (or even non-law-abiding citizens) get deported?
The actual scenario is closer to:
1. I sign a contract stating I will not tell anyone what you're about to tell me next.
2. You show me a few gigabytes of private documents most of which you can legitimately keep secret but one of which describes your plan to shoot me next week.
3. I reveal the entire contents of the documents, including not only the gun threat, but everything else down to your embarrassing medical condition and the fact that you lied to your wife when she asked you if a dress made her look fat. I post them all on the Internet, with the excuse that the information contains a gun threat.
I don't know about that. How do you compare companies that do drastically different things, but also do them to drastically different numbers of people?
Taking someone's home is clearly at least ten thousand times as worse as DRMing a game. But there are also probably over ten thousand times as many victims for the latter.
It's like the argument that we pay actors millions of dollars and we pay teachers a pittance. Well, teaching is more important than entertainment--if you're teaching one person and entertaining one person. But you can entertain millions of people at a time, and things that are much less important taken one at a time are multiplied by millions.
There has to be some point at which inconveniencing tens of millions of people is worse than causing serious harm to a much smaller number.
What? The number of cables it takes to attach a tablet with an HDMI port to a TV is one. If one cable causes people trouble, I don't understand how they can handle their PS3 and Wii.
And a more basic problem with this argument is that the main audience for these devices is geeks, who don't have problems with attaching cables, using wireless controllers, or any of the other things that are supposed disadvantages over using a tablet with an HDMI port. It doesn't matter if these devices are slightly better for your grandmother; your grandmother probably won't step in a Gamestop, never mind use Kickstarter or even want a video game console at all.
Using it for emulators and Pirate Bay is just a consolation prize. It's not advertised as doing that. Not all people like to do such things and for those who don't, the worst case is finding out the device is not useful for its advertised purpose and having no use for it at all.
(Actually there's another use I left out. Legitimate Netflix. But existing game consoles can already handle that.)
The lower end of small cheap tablets with HDMI ports already falls under the $100 range.
Why is everyone going gaga over Android consoles? You can already hook up many existing tablets or other Android devices to HDMI and see games on your television. These new Android consoles are unlikely to get lots of games specific to just that console, so they will mostly run ordinary Android apps. They'll probably be used mostly to run emulators and media players on a TV--except that you can jailbreak a Wii to get that and the processing power of Android game consoles is weak enough that they have no advantage over a Wii for emulators (and only an advantage for media players because they have hardware decoding).
Aside from the joke about the misspelling of "Streisand", this is on the money. Forcing an admin to delete one article is subject to the Streisand effect. Forcing admins to delete an article every month for the next year will result in the Internet getting tired of hearing about it, and at some point getting the articles deleted actually won't attract any attention.
Because they don't necessarily believe you 100% Suppose they think your statement has a 25% chance of being true. A 25% chance of having a bomb is enough that they ought to search you, but a 25% chance of not having a bomb isn't enough to let you through.
You know what else induces stress? Actually being on a mission to bomb the plane. I would be extremely unsurprised at bombers who joke about having bombs. It's stupid for someone who actually has a bomb to joke about it, of course, but getting on a plane with a bomb is more stressful than even an ordinary TSA-laden airplane flight.
I guarantee that if you cure cancer you'll make as much as a basketball player.
Presumably you're referring to someone who cures one case of cancer. If a doctor manages to cure a patient of cancer, that's a good thing, but it's still one patient. The basketball player entertains, which is something worth much less--except although it's worth much less it's multiplied by the ability to entertain tens of millions of people at a time. It doesn't matter that basketball is worth less than curing cancer, because the basketball player makes it up in volume. Much less valuable thing times tens of millions = much more valuable thing.
New technology often makes things which were possible but impractical, practical.
People could wander around with traditional video capture devices, but it would be awkward for them to do so and most real-world attempts to do this would be easy to notice, even if it's theoretically possible that someone could have a little hole in their shirt pocket just for the cellphone camera to peek out of. Google could pay people to collect video, but it would be expensive on a large scale.
You are taking that sentence out of context. That article absolutely does not say that it is controversial that the meteorite came from Mars. The only part that is controversial is the part about the life. It's right there in the article:
Furthermore, the article is actually about locating where on Mars the meteorite comes from. At no point does it ever say that there is doubt that the meteorite comes from Mars.
Your link refers to a particular Mars meteorite that some people thought might contain evidence of life.
You've misunderstood that. The meteorite is from Mars. The "life" part was questionable, but the "Mars" part was real. Nobody was "fooled" into thinking it's from Mars; it's really from Mars, and scientists haven't changed their mind about that.
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet. However, they also say that Apple can file an amended application claiming "acquired distinctiveness". Apple will have no trouble doing that, so basically, they can trademark it if they try again.
If they do that, they have to disclaim "mini" as being descriptive.
A Nexus 4 doesn't have an SD card slot. What phone would you recommend that is pretty good for non-phone purposes, falls in a similar price range or lower, and allows an SD card?
This isn't true.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas (which applies it to more words than just Christmas). The "X" derives from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter in Christ, and it's been used that way for hundreds of years.
The phone is prophibited because the phone tries to connect to dozens of cell towers when it's in a plane in the air. That's a different reason thatn interference with the plane itself, which is the reason for the general electronics ban, so if the FAA gets rid of the ban it won't affect cellphones.
According to TFA, 1) Congress complained about the video and 2) the IRS admitted it was a mistake to make the video. If they just needed to produce a dummy video, and the Star Trek theme involved spending no money over what they would have spent anyway, why would they then announce that "There is no mistaking that this video did not reflect the best stewardship of resources"?
(Moreover, according to TFA, Congress did determine that the Gilligan's Island one was legitimate, so it's not as if they were doing a witchhunt and would refuse to accept any video with a TV show theme. If this video too was legitimate the IRS should have had no problems explaining it away. Obviously they couldn't.)
Looks like the Republicans are right, after all.
If hospitals in your country are being used as a shield by terrorists, and as a result Americans start attacking your hospitals, that's the fault of the terrorists for using your hospitals as shields and/or the fault of your own government for letting your country be used as a haven for terrorists, not the fault of the Americans. This is true whether the attack is cyber or physical.
It really sucks to have terrorists hiding among civilians because it makes the civilians get hurt in attacks, but that's what happens when terrorists hide among civilians.
Furthermore, the question is whether nations have the right to kill enemy hackers. You do not; you are not a nation. If the Americans are attacking you and you want to attack them back, get your country to declare war on America and join the army.
I don't know if that counts as the activity of ordinary people. It's not as if she wrote a blog, or a newspaper column, or even protested without causing disruption.
It's like claiming that a law against bank robbery can be "enforced against ordinary people" because an ordinary person can rob a bank. Yeah, they can, but robbing a bank isn't really the activity of an ordinary person in the first place.